2A1 Ishapore terrible accuracy + other problems

I have a 2A1 Ishapore that has a number of issues I am looking to fix.

1. The trigger has a lot of play, over 1/8" from side to side. It seems the trigger guard assembly is rather wide. Should I try bending the housing it or shim it with something, or is there something else to prevent the wobble?

2. Group size at 50 yards is about 2 feet. I took the rifle apart and it does not seem to be missing any parts. It does seem that the end of the barrel is making contact with the side of the nose cap at about 1 o'clock. Where should I look first for the source of this problem?

3. Trigger pull is terrible. It must be 10 pounds.

3. I set the rear sights at 200 meters(As low as they go) and the recoil from one shot causes them to jump up to 400 meters

4. Is there a recoil pad that fits this buttstock well, or do I need to read up on how to make one? Recoil with the aluminum butt plate on this thing is way worse than my 12Ga shotgun.



I want to make this my go-to .308 rifle, but right now my pump action shotgun firing slugs is superior in every way.

Is this one of those 'Ethiopan' ones that have recently become available, selling at prices that good conditions ones make ?
Does it have any markings showing DP, ZF or similar on it ?

Pictures would help.

Sounds like it needs a thorough going over; preferably by a professional who knows Enfield rifles.
You shouldn't need to bend anything.
The rear sight problem will probably be a weak spring in the rear sight slide.

Ethiopia? I hope not! Cosmetically it is not in terrible shape, as far as I can tell.

The gap between the trigger and guard is over .3mm and the surfaces are not exactly parallel either.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...05124526-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...05124622-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...05124852-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...05124936-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...05125249-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...05125342-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...05125414-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...05125424-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...05125947-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...05125955-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...05131336-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...05131422-1.jpg
url download

If I were to buy a copy of "The 2012 Complete Book on Lee Enfield Accurizing", would that have all the info I need to fix it up myself?
I like to do things myself and not spend a lot of money, but I know that some experience is hard-won. Is there an Enfield expert near San Diego who could take a look at it?

One of your problems is that the forend is split and there is a chunk of wood missing around the front trigger guard screw.
The draws do not look to be in the best of condition and look as if they have already been cut out and replaced once.

What does the 'back-end' of the forend look like (any splits) ?

Oh, should there be a block of wood above the screw hole?
What exactly are "the draws" in this instance? I am not familiar with the term.

If by back-end, you mean the part that is closest to the stock when put together: there are cracks going through the wood, but there is a metal band with a pin through it wrapping around the back-end. I would hazard a guess that is OK?

I appreciate the assistance.

Also, is the area the trigger actually sits in sprung outwards? Hard to see but it looks bowed wide. Yes, the draws seem a bit...hammered. That's the back end inside where it's chipped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FLOPPY_DISK

Oh, should there be a block of wood above the screw hole?
What exactly are "the draws" in this instance? I am not familiar with the term.

If by back-end, you mean the part that is closest to the stock when put together: there are cracks going through the wood, but there is a metal band with a pin through it wrapping around the back-end. I would hazard a guess that is OK?

I appreciate the assistance.

---

The draws are marked in 'red' and is the area that absorbs the recoil. If they become damaged due to 'something wrong' somewhere else, then each firing means they get worse and worse. They are not 'that bad' but are certainly not in the best of condition.

The area marked in yellow is where a piece of wood is missing. This allows the wood to move under recoil which could be as a result of damaged draws.

Can you post a photo of the back end of the forend (yes - where the strap goes across) if this is split it could be as a result of incorrect order of disassembly of the woodwork.

It would appear that you may have 3 areas of damage all related to holding the action tightly in the woodwork, all affecting accuracy.

Everything on Enfield's is 'linked' and doing anything in the wrong order can result in damage.

Don't panic - All are repairable if you have good carpentry skills.

Yes, it does seem to be sprung outwards. Perhaps that is a factory defect, or some strange abuse happened to it. I am guessing that the steel is not too brittle and that it would it be best to just install the pin to keep the holes aligned and bend it inward until it is touching the trigger on both sides, or should there be some gap?

I need to be more thorough next time I buy something used...

So it looks like I need to replace the missing block of wood and then possibly remove and replace the damaged draws with new ones? Is it possible it will shoot well without reworking the draws, or would it be better to replaced all of those parts at once?

---------- Post added at 01:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:07 AM ----------

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...06011050-1.jpg

Is there a good resource that I should read or watch regarding this sort of rifle stock repair? At least, is there a preferred type of wood that should be used for the replacement parts?

---------- Post added at 01:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:16 AM ----------

Also, what do you mean by wrong order?

I might be tempted to replace the forend to be honest, that one has certainly taken a real hammering.

What's the availability of 2A1 forends guys?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

I might be tempted to replace the forend to be honest, that one has certainly taken a real hammering.

What's the availability of 2A1 forends guys?

---

I was going to suggest that, but the work involved in fitting a new forend (or even a 'pre-loved' forend) can be as much as repairing the original.

I replaced a forend on a No1 Mk3* and had huge problems - the most difficiult to resolve was that with the new (old) forend in place the rifle would not fire - without it, fired no problem.The new wood was 'fouling' the trigger assembly, I tried with a forend of a No1 Mk3 in 410 calibre and it worked perfectly, put the other forend on the 410 and it also worked perfectly.
Every rifle is an individual.

Remember that these rifles were the last of the 'Victorian engineering, hand built' rifles (unlike the No4 where most parts were interchangeable) and the wood work has to be FITTED to each individual rifle.

There are 5 important parts that must stay together and these were numbered by armourers (if they were not already numbered) these were :

Bolt
Barrel
Rear Sight
Nose-piece
Forend.

Replace any one and the rifle had to be re-worked to get accuracy back again.


From the 1931 issue of "Instruction to Armourers":

1. General.—Examine the rifle to see that the number, and the series letter where marked, on the
nose-cap, fore-end, sight leaf, barrel and bolt agree with the number on the body, and that the rifle is
complete. Record deficiencies, if any and damage due to unfair wear for report.

Come to that (I know buXXer all about 2A1's) is the 2A1 forend exactly the same in all the important places as that for a standard SMLE in .303? If so, that would make sourcing a replacement a little easier....

You will find Capt' Peter Laidler's methods for repair on this site. They are essential reading before you do anything else.
Also, before getting too far into the woodwork jobs. It might be worth checking the barrel for wear and also the headspace.
Not much point spending time on the woodwork repairs only to find out the headspace is over limits and the barrel is toast.

That's a good point about the barrel. Apart from general wear, even a minor muzzle bulge will give you shotgun pattern groups as it will muck up the gyroscopic stability imparted on the bullet by the rifling. Might be worth having a close look at the barrel. Getting soil stuck in the muzzle & not noticing before firing a rifle is a common cause of muzzle bulging ('ringing').

I am no real guru on them but the bottom wood the draws look to have been repaired before as there is a vertical dowel through both of them plus the left ones chipped besides they look mushed and the back end of the bottom wood well that tells the whole story shagged? Get a NOS or good 2nd hand and fit it up plenty of info on this site on how to's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

I am no real guru on them but the bottom wood the draws look to have been repaired before as there is a vertical dowel through both of them plus the left ones chipped besides they look mushed and the back end of the bottom wood well that tells the whole story shagged? Get a NOS or good 2nd hand and fit it up plenty of info on this site on how to's.

---

I'm with Ron on this one, so much damage and old repairs, I would fit a replacement and set about the fun and games of bedding.

As said, plenty of correct 'how to' resources on here to absorb....

Absolutely. I agree entirely with the comments about the forend, hence my remarks about whether a standard Mk3/3* SMLE forend is identical, & perhaps easier to source as a replacement. However, I was just wondering if there could be something else as well.........in his opening post the OP stated that the rifle was producing two foot groups at 50 yds..............that's pretty bad............

I happen to know a pretty good certified gunsmith who is excellent with Enfields, especially the talent of fitting the stocks to the barrels and actions. He is retired but does small side jobs to keep busy. He resides in the Coachella Valley, about 1.5 hours from San Diego. I would be happy to send you his telephone number if that will help you out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FLOPPY_DISK

Yes, it does seem to be sprung outwards. Perhaps that is a factory defect, or some strange abuse happened to it. I am guessing that the steel is not too brittle and that it would it be best to just install the pin to keep the holes aligned and bend it inward until it is touching the trigger on both sides, or should there be some gap?

---

Not magic, just give it a squeeze until it's snug fit again. Can't imagine how it got opened up. Seems to be the least here though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Not magic, just give it a squeeze until it's snug fit again. Can't imagine how it got opened up. Seems to be the least here though.

---

"Shade-tree" Gunsmiths have found that if they bend the trigger guard it alters the 'pull-off', rather than doing it properly, it is a 'bodge' than can be done with a pair of pliers and a screwdriver.

Peter Laidler made mention of it in one of his 'presentations' explaining that it must be 'flat' and touching the forend throughout its length.


Extract :

The trigger guard should not spring at the rear or front….., NO it shouldn’t! If it was meant to, it’d be made of spring steel!

There is not anything obvious wrong with the barrel. The crown seems Ok, and I don't see any rings when I look down the barrel in with a flashlight, nor do I see any external bulges.

I am inclined to follow the advice of Alan de Enfield and stick with attempting a repair on my current stock for 3 reasons.

1. He is the only one who has spoken up and who has had to deal with replacing a SMLE stock.

2. Externally, the present forestock looks good and the wood matches the buttstock.

3. If I try to repair and the repair fails, I can always buy a replacement afterwards.

Good point, why not have a go...

Regarding replacement forends, SMLE examples are still available here in the UK, but I've never seen a 2A1 forend.

We had a batch of 2A1's come onto the UK market several years ago, the rough ones were deactivated, but little in the way of spare parts.

When I got my BSA No.4 1944 "T" at 100M it had about a 24" grouping for 10 shots 2 things I discovered with the rifle A) The whole action rocked on the collar even though the trigger guard screw was tight B) On stripping the action out of the woods the draws looked like mushrooms smashed to pieces.

So I had a master stock maker effect a repair on it so the draws will never ever give any trouble again period, it now clover leafs 3 shots at 100M with my reloads.
So what I am alluding to is you may spend allot of time getting the wood back into serviceable condition but there is allot of you swiming against the current.
The way I see it that the wood is very soft from years of oil ingress and has really had a number done on it from a split that appears to radiate upwards from the action collar towards the muzzle end, the draws have been repaired already and where the tie plate is it just really looks munted.

I wish you all the best in your trial to get it up and running but I honestly feel for your sake it would be better in the long run with a NOS or good 2nd hand botton wood as this bottom wood has been flogged and how long will it last after your repairs 1 shoot or another 70 years! All the best anyway keep the thread updated with your progress with pics. :cheers::wave:

Also bear in mind that these rifles were intended, not for front-line troops but as "ammo-compatible" weapons much further back in the food chain..

Being in 7.62 NATO (ish), the activities of the barrel and fore-end will be unlike those of a .303 SMLE. This is like the "issues" that occurred with the Brit L8 7.62 NATO conversions.

If you had a "mint" 2A1 and a pallet of the correct Indian ammo, yu should be sweet, however...

Has anyone ever seen any of the original Indian military official armourer instructions a la EMER / EMEI, etc., preferably the "English" editions?

If the sight is jumping then the coil spring inside the slide is either weak, missing, broken, or the retaining nut is partially unscrewed (common).

Other possibilities: rack-and-pinion mechanism clogged with dirt. Unscrew eyepiece, remove slide, drop in can of mineral spirits for a day or two or use ultrasonic machine if you have one. Brush with M-16 cleaning 'toothbrush'.

Substitute known good slide, if you have one.

"...Ethiopia? I hope not!..." While I agree with you, it really just means it was 'rode hard and put away wet' often. We had a bunch of Sudanese AR-10's in the shop years ago that still had desert sand in 'em. Illiterate Third World troopies(usually untrained conscripts) didn't look after their kit. Mind you, most 2A's were issued to Indian prison guards, rural police and game wardens.
Keep in mind that 'fixing it' will likely cost a big pile of money. Parts, especially stocks, are not easy or cheap to find. There are no more 'stock sets' pretty much anywhere. And a stripped bolt head, that you need a handful of to fix headspace, runs $15.50US each at Gunparts. They claim it'll fit a 2A.
Having said that, before doing anything with the stock, slug the barrel and check or have the headspace checked. There is no point spending time and money of fixing the stock if the headspace is bad. Or the bore diameter is excessive. Mind you, 2A's tend not to have bore issues. Headspace can be bad though. Thousands of these rifles have been assembled out of parts bins with zero QC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sunray

Headspace can be bad though. Thousands of these rifles have been assembled out of parts bins with zero QC.

---

How do you check the headspace ?
Remember these are 7.62 (not 308 Win) and there are 12 different 7.62 NATO headspace gauges for GO and 12 for NO-GO for different firearms and different reasons. Which one do you take ?

What should the 2A headspace be and whereabouts on the neck should it be measured ?

On the subject of Ethiopia, RTI were selling 'bargain basement' Ishapore rifles that they appear to have sourced from a 'scrap heap' in Ethiopia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

How do you check the headspace ?
Remember these are 7.62 (not 308 Win) and there are 12 different 7.62 NATO headspace gauges for GO and 12 for NO-GO for different firearms and different reasons. Which one do you take ?

What should the 2A headspace be and whereabouts on the neck should it be measured ?

On the subject of Ethiopia, RTI were selling 'bargain basement' Ishapore rifles that they appear to have sourced from a 'scrap heap' in Ethiopia

---

I was wondering the same thing re head spacing. I have to say (rightly or wrongly) I've always had my doubts about the strength of the 2A1 action and 7.62x51.

I know the steel is changed, but still, dimensionally, it's a No1 and the somewhat
slim sidewalls of the action body would trouble me, I have my doubts...

Looking at the 7.62 NATO brass, I did not see any signs of stretching or marking. Does that that mean that the headspace is Ok?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

I was wondering the same thing re head spacing. I have to say (rightly or wrongly) I've always had my doubts about the strength of the 2A1 action and 7.62x51.

I know the steel is changed, but still, dimensionally, it's a No1 and the somewhat
slim sidewalls of the action body would trouble me, I have my doubts...

---

I'm afraid you have 'fallen for' the internet rumour that if repeated enough times becomes fact.

The steel is NOT a better grade, it is exactly that as specified for the No1 Mk3.
In fact Peter Laidler bought a dozen 2A / 2A1 and had them tested, several were found to actually be No1 Mk3 and the original markings could be seen under the microscope.

There was an interesting article (some years ago) from the ProofMaster of the Ishapore rifle factory and a section of the article dealt specifically with Lee Enfields.


Extract from “Gun Digest 33rd Anniversary 1979 Deluxe Edition”
Article Author : Mr A G Harrison
Qualification : Former ‘Proof Master’ of the ‘Rifle Factory Proof House, Ishapore, India’

From 1908 to 1950 all military bolt action rifles made at Ishapore were proof tested with a dry-round, followed with by an oiled proof round. The proof cartridge was loaded to 24 tons psi breech pressure, or 15% higher than the service pressure. In 1950 (after the departure, in 1949, of India from British control) the material for the rifle bodies was altered from an EN steel to SWES 48 steel with the recoil shoulder and cam recesses being heat treated. With this change the rifle receivers distorted when oiled proof cartridges were fired. This was discovered when hard and sometimes impossible bolt retraction was experienced. Large quantities of rifles were rejected.
To avoid rejections the authorities ordered discontinuance of the oiled proof round. Therefore from 1950 to the end of SMLE production, rifles made at Ishapore were proof tested with one dry proof only, although the specification still called for both dry and oiled proof. All bolts and bolt heads issued as spares were always proofed with a dry proof round only.

A bolt action rifle similar to the SMLE MkIII*, modified to fire the 7.62mm NATO cartridge, was produced at Ishapore, first in February 1965. The receivers were made of SWES 48 steel (as per the SMLE MkIII*) and with the NATO proof cartridge the receivers were found to distort with both the dry and oiled proof round. The material was changed back to the originally specified EN steel so now the rifles stand up better to dry and oiled proof. After passing proof the barrels are impressed with the Indian national proof stamp. The bolt handles and bolt head claws are struck with the crossed flags only.



You could say that the 2A / 2A1 were a better steel than the Ishapore No1 Mk3's, but that is only because the Indians changed the specification of the steel used on the No1 Mk3.
The 2A / 2A1 steel used is the same steel as originally specified for the No1 Mk3 ans is the same as that used by all other No1 Mk3 manufacturers.

The proof was only for 144gn NATO ammo nothing else. Not for 308 150gn or larger. These rifles are not 308 proofed. Lithgow did also convert some No6 Mk1s the same action as the No1 Mk3* but they all failed. The range shooters with No4s could send their rifle to Lithgow for conversion to 7.62 NATO. There was a failure rate with them as well. Not all rifles came back from the proof firing. So if you have a No4 7.62 conversion use only 144gn NATO ammo or similar handloads.

Very interesting guys, many thanks indeed for the information.

I've seen two failed SMLE action bodies over the years, one twisted along its length and another with a clean fracture on the left hand side, by the charger bridge.

From memory, the broken body was British and the twisted example was Ishapore ( 1953 from memory).

Both .303

The broken body was stripped out at an RFD's and the twisted example was a friend of a friend, who noticed the bolt getting stiff until it jammed (you would think this was the clue to stop and check) but he ended up using a rubber hammer to get the bolt out of battery and off the rifle.

I only made a quick examination of the rifle, but sure enough, the bolt would only go in to the charger bridge level then jam solid. I tried another bolt and just the same. I never found out the results of the strip, but it was clearly trashed!

The message I get from all this is that even if the SMLE sction just about copes with 7.62mm 144 grain ammo when the body is made from EN steel, the conversion process pushes it to its very limits. The No4 body is intrinsically more heavily built & stronger, but even in that I only shoot 144gr service ammunition. Other people can do what they wish; I'm no Brad Pitt, but I'm happy with my facial features just as they are......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

I'm afraid you have 'fallen for' the internet rumour that if repeated enough times becomes fact.

The steel is NOT a better grade, it is exactly that as specified for the No1 Mk3.
In fact Peter Laidler bought a dozen 2A / 2A1 and had them tested, several were found to actually be No1 Mk3 and the original markings could be seen under the microscope.
...snip...

---

I'm sorry, but this story cannot be true - there are structural differences between a 2A/2A1 action and a No1 action - and yes, when PL made the assertion that 2A/2A1 actions were merely converted No1 .303 actions, I called him on it.

The easiest structural difference to see is that the ejector screw is moved forward approx. 1/4" on the 2A/2A1 action.
the second one is that there is a relief cut on the inside of the action to assist the cartridge base running into the ejector screw.

If .303 No1 receivers were "converted" into 2A/2A1 actions, it would be very plain to see, and there would be 2 ejector screw threaded holes in the action - similar to the Sterling 7.62 No4 conversion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee Enfield

I'm sorry, but this story cannot be true - there are structural differences between a 2A/2A1 action and a No1 action - and yes, when PL made the assertion that 2A/2A1 actions were merely converted No1 .303 actions, I called him on it.

The easiest structural difference to see is that the ejector screw is moved forward approx. 1/4" on the 2A/2A1 action.
the second one is that there is a relief cut on the inside of the action to assist the cartridge base running into the ejector screw.

If .303 No1 receivers were "converted" into 2A/2A1 actions, it would be very plain to see, and there would be 2 ejector screw threaded holes in the action - similar to the Sterling 7.62 No4 conversion

---

If we accept that PL was mistaken with regard to the re-use of No1 Mk3 bodies, do you accept that the steel used and the revised testing is as reported by the Proof Master ?

The 2A is a converted action the 2A1 is a new built action. The No4 can not be compared to them apples and oranges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bindi2

The 2A is a converted action the 2A1 is a new built action. The No4 can not be compared to them apples and oranges.

---

The 2A and 2A1 rifles which I have owned and handled have ALL been new built 7.62 actions.

The difference between the 2 rifles is the rear sight tanget on a 2A is a .303 (1800 or 2000?? yards) tangent leaf on a recalibrated bed.

The 2A1 has a new sight bed and tangent leaf.

Numrich at one point had loose 2A/2A1 7.62 barrels for sale - who knkws what they have been fitted to.

---------- Post added at 04:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

If we accept that PL was mistaken with regard to the re-use of No1 Mk3 bodies, do you accept that the steel used and the revised testing is as reported by the Proof Master ?

---

I would think that the "Proof Master" would have an idea of whether actions failed proof or not.

I believe that comment was circa 1962/63ish and either in the Reynolds book or American Rifleman magazine.

This would correspond with the start of 2A production.

I know what the differences between the 2A and the 2A1 are. Check the action stampings they tell the story. The Indian FTR process didn't get rid of all the clues just most. The 2As came into Australia first, the game was to find out who built the action the Indians or the Brits. I haven't seen a Lithgow converted. The 2A1s were not mixed as there has been no confirmation as yet.
The No4 conversion in Australia did not have a new ejector screw hole drilled, in fact most screws were removed all together if the local Central sight was used. Some other sights used that screw hole for mounting. There was no requirement to be able to eject unfired rounds, cases ejected without the screw in place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee Enfield

I would think that the "Proof Master" would have an idea of whether actions failed proof or not.

I believe that comment was circa 1962/63ish and either in the Reynolds book or American Rifleman magazine.

This would correspond with the start of 2A production.

---

As I quoted in post #31 :

Extract from “Gun Digest 33rd Anniversary 1979 Deluxe Edition”
Article Author : Mr A G Harrison
Qualification : Former ‘Proof Master’ of the ‘Rifle Factory Proof House, Ishapore, India’

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bindi2

I know what the differences between the 2A and the 2A1 are. Check the action stampings they tell the story. The Indian FTR process didn't get rid of all the clues just most. The 2As came into Australia first, the game was to find out who built the action the Indians or the Brits. I haven't seen a Lithgow converted. The 2A1s were not mixed as there has been no confirmation as yet.
The No4 conversion in Australia did not have a new ejector screw hole drilled, in fact most screws were removed all together if the local Central sight was used. Some other sights used that screw hole for mounting. There was no requirement to be able to eject unfired rounds, cases ejected without the screw in place.

---

Being as I'm curious can anyone find photos of a 1963 dated or earlier Ishapore 2A which shows the location of the ejector screw? I have attached links to 2-1964 dated and 1-1965 dated Ishapore 2A actions (1 converted to pistol cartridge)

I have not been able to find a single photo of a 2A/2A1 (date visible or not) which shows an ejector screw location other than the 7.62 location rather than the .303 location.

1964- DE LISLE COMMANDO CARBINE IN 50 AE Caliber only one - Silencers Suppressed Firearms at GunBroker.com : 880566260
1964- ishapore lee-enfield 2a vs 2a1 | Snipers Hide Forum
1965- INDIAN ISHAPORE 2A RIFLE 7.62 NATO (ENFIELD SML... for sale

Here are the specs for checking headspace on the RFI 2A/2A1 in caliber 7.62.

1.633 GO
1.642 NO GO

Do not fire these rifles with anything other that 7.62 NATO ball or an equivalent as Bindi says. I'll always consider these "Barney Fife" rifles. "Here's your rifle Barn", "Here's your bullet". "please put it in your pocket! Seriously, if you want a Lee Enfield as your favorite go-to 7.62, buy a No.4 conversion. They are much stronger but remember that you're still stressing the body to the limit of it's design.

Thanks Brian. You've just put rather better than I did what I was trying to articulate in post #34. Even though the No4 action is stronger than the SMLE I stick to putting NATO 144 grain ball through my L42.............& it is what the rifle was intended to be fed.

Almost forgot. If memory serves, the test that Peter Laidler did was on 11 assorted 2A and 2A1 rifles that were at the HQ, SASC. The bodies were only tested for Rockwell hardness and all tested the same as WW1 SMLE bodies. Whether or not the 7.62 RFI bodies were made with a higher grade of steel remains to be seen but it makes good gossip I reckon.

---------- Post added at 04:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:24 PM ----------

Roger,

I have a bolt head on my desk that came from an L42A1 that a guy blew up trying to shoot M118LR, (full house loads w/175 SMK pill), duplication handloads. A very harsh lesson and he was lucky not to be hurt. It's all the proof I need that sticking to the ammo and pressures these rifles were designed for is imperative. I also have to admmit that they never cease to amaze as the rifle body itself was undamaged even though the bolt head came apart and the bolt bod cracked for almost it's entire length. I was lucky to have a few 19T bolt bodies and heads and built him a new bolt assembly, test fired it and it was fine.

Brian

Yes, I figured they would have been either in the possession of Warminster or Shrivenham, & that Peter would never in a million years have bought them himself. He wouldn't have been bothered enough to know the answer that badly!

Brian. Yes, I am not surprised re the failure with the heavy bullets. There was a decent safety margin built into these old girls for the ammunition they were intended to fire. The margin is lessened when using higher pressure ammunition, & more so when using it in bodies of an earlier & lighter design. Then add in the variables such as someone shooting hot reloads, shooting heavy projectiles, shooting in the rain, or getting an oily round in the chamber, & you're skating on thin ice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

Here are the specs for checking headspace on the RFI 2A/2A1 in caliber 7.62.

1.633 GO
1.642 NO GO

---

I knew what the headspace should be and also which Mil gauges to use, (PL secured the information from the Indian Liaison Officer) but I was questioning how SUNRAY could say that the '2A rifles don't have barrel problems but have headspace problems' without knowing what the headspace should be, or what gauges to use.



But as PL said on a number of occasions "where on the taper do you take the measurement ?"


Anyone for 7.62mm CHS?
Posted By: Peter Laidler
Date: Tues 6 May 2008 11:36 am


Now for the biggie, the 7.62’s. The basic principle of headspacing hasn’t changed here but the practicalities have. Whereas before, on our rimmed .303” rifles we measured the GO NO-GO distance between the front face of the bolt and the rear face of the barrel, it’s all changed for the rimless 7.62mm NATO caliber rifles. Now we have to measure from the front face of the bolt to the cartridge seating at the neck. Well, that’s all pretty clear then ….., except that the neck is tapered so where EXACTLY on that neck do you take your GO, 1.628” and NO-GO 1.635 measurement from? Even if I told you it’d make no difference whatsoever because without the specialist measuring and more importantly, the calibration equipment, you’d still be none the wiser. The trouble with this is that you’ve got to take the word of the manufacturer of the gauge. And exactly where does HE take HIS measurement from but more importantly, WHO does he get them from. geting difficult isn't it?
Let me give you an example. My GO gauge gives you a close/GO reading of 1.628 but Bloggs & Co gauge may give you a GO reading of 1.575” for the same 7.62mm caliber. How can there be a difference of .053” between the two when they are identical? Well, it’s simple really. Our STANAG gauges are measured from one diameter around the neck while Bloggs & Co are taken from a different but larger diameter .053” further to the rear! That is really all I want to say about that.

Has anyone hereabouts gauged the throat / leade in a 2A / 2A1 barrel?

The simple expedient of extending the freebore will reduce the peak pressure and the slightly flatten the overall pressure curve.

For that matter, how tightly throated is the L-42A1? That cited example of one "blown up" by M-118 Match may be a a rabbit-hole to explore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

...snip...Roger,

I have a bolt head on my desk that came from an L42A1 that a guy blew up trying to shoot M118LR, (full house loads w/175 SMK pill), duplication handloads. A very harsh lesson and he was lucky not to be hurt. It's all the proof I need that sticking to the ammo and pressures these rifles were designed for is imperative. I also have to admmit that they never cease to amaze as the rifle body itself was undamaged even though the bolt head came apart and the bolt bod cracked for almost it's entire length. I was lucky to have a few 19T bolt bodies and heads and built him a new bolt assembly, test fired it and it was fine.

Brian

---

That's impressive, I've seen a number of No4's which were over pressured and they were not fireable afterwards.

In 3 cases, I've seen the front of the bolt "dolphined" out of the action - i suppose the bolt body stayed straight, while the action bent down.

Unknown what loadings were being used but the 1 fellow claimed Canadian 7.62 ball (it was a modified DCRA 7.62).

I wonder if the scope helped in this (L42) case?

He admitted to loading it hot. Maybe he even exceeded the pressure of a M118LR but that was the load he was working towards using the 175 SMK. I think he learned his lesson.

I'm not sure about throat wear in the L42A1 but I'd guess it's fairly excessive in most rifles since they were ALL pretty well used. I've never noticed detrimental accuracy though and I've worked on a ton of them including the last ones sold in bulk which were absolutely flogged to death along with the telescopes.

---------- Post added at 04:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:03 PM ----------

A good friend of mine offered to bring his 20x bore scope here to check my two personal L42A1 rifles and possibly ones I still had for sale at the time. I passed on that idea. I didn't want to see in there. Of course, none could be as bad as what I've seen attributed to good old cordite loaded Mk.7 in .303! I do have correct plug gauges for the .303.

Of subject a bit: I've gauged several of the RTI Ethiopian SMLE's before breeching them up with the excellent RFI barrels. It's the first time I've ever seen a .310 plug run all the way through and fall out the muzzle. They shouldn't enter the breech more than .25" to be in spec. It's obvious that they didn't clean barrels in Ethiopia. I would have thought that they were worn out from shooting but the bodies and bolts were all OK. The barrels just eroded from a complete lack of maintenence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

Of subject a bit: I've gauged several of the RTI Ethiopian SMLE's before breeching them up with the excellent RFI barrels. It's the first time I've ever seen a .310 plug run all the way through and fall out the muzzle.

---

:yikes:

Perhaps they were hoping they'd naturally evolve into .410 shotgun conversion through the natural passage of time :lol:

Well, they certainly weren't well trained in weapons maintenance. That's for sure!

That looks to be a easy fix if you can’t get Rogers book his has u-tube